— In WEDconscious@yahoogroups.com, “Dhushara” wrote:
“Neural synchrony is (not) about …………simultaneity of processing audio-visual input and the verbal linguistic input.” Parenthesis added.
Honestly, I do not understand how any reader can understand my ‘Spanglish’ ramblings! I am trying to say too many things in one breath. Chris, what you are saying is true but I am trying to emphasize the importance of requiring the joint participation of both the theorist and the practitioner when assessing the real time needs of a patient so that an adequate therapeutic protocol can be designed. It accentuates on the crucial importance of extracting the truthful content of the patient’s verbalization of his ailment during that first visit. What we are witnessing is an unfortunate polarization where the clinician, too busy or lazy to update his practice, becomes a local robot repeating that same old treatment and the theorist, unfamiliar or uninterested in the patient needs, becomes the universal robot repeating the same mathematical logic formulas applying to all creatures anywhere in the cosmos. For me to be able to communicate why this problem may be minimized in behalf of a more accurate diagnosis and treatment for any condition at all I need to explain the philosophical basis underlying the problem which means discussing the evolution of complexity so that the possible solution is meaningful and credible.
We have 1) material things (unit dimension, or aggregates thereof), 2) their attributions (color, dimension, form, shape, etc.) and 3) an observer. Since all three can change, we simplify by choosing an unit invariant particle dimension anywhere in cosmos and consider how the potentially variant attributions may influence any observer’s account about the physical material truthful state anytime, anywhere. IMO this can be represented by variations on Paul Dirac’s mathematical formulation using vector calculus bra-ket notation you are familiar with. It contains an invariant component and a variant component affecting the appearance of the invariant, regardless of the presence of any observer anywhere. The complexity is only caused by the 3) observer component. Since our priorities should be concerned with the physical human brain where those material reality variations are encoded in neuronal networks representations, the observer needs to get a truth-content account of the variation as it truthfully happened independent of its appearance to a human observer. This is especially true when the human observer ignores what relevant changes in the assumed invariant material particles may limit or corrupt the sense-phenomenal perceptual input from his internal body proper or external receptors. The interplay between between the participating variables may significantly and improperly influence what is really happening to the invariant material brain substrate. Here we have all three components varying in space time and thereby rendering any computational effort to ascertain what is really happening an impossibility, especially if we use rational numbers in the vector analysis and have to reckon with infinities. Thus, we limit the number of variables by assuming the existence of a single invariant quantum material particle state and get falsifiable technological information about the resulting variations from the dynamic interactions of the participating variable elements. Because of my insistence on the priority emphasis on real time verifiable mesoscopic reality as the basis on which to justify flying into conjectures and speculations about what is happening in the physical material brain with no relevant familiarity about its structural and functional aspects, I see the need for the presence of the appropriate practitioner and theorist during an evaluation of what is really happening.
Because we humans should be concerned about what is truthfully happening in our brains before in our biosphere before we take theoretical flights of fancy into an unknown cosmos we need to know what truthfully is happening in our own brain before we board on that spatial engine. This emphasis on the priority of the human observer’s existential reality brings into focus what I consider as being currently ignored by both practitioners and theorists, i.e., how verbal accounts of what is reliably happening in our own material brain may be distorted by the grammatical language structure being used. I am suggesting how may such probable distorsions may be minimized by substituting the invariant component with the newborn inherited generative grammar (proto-language) and substituting the variable components with the measurable interplay of environmental factors participating at a given moment during a verbal interview.
I discuss how real space-time sense phenomenal perceptual activity comes in three flavors, a graphical audiovisual representation, a putative ‘inner language’ representation and an unknown brain dark matter source under investigation. The natural neural synchrony of their respective brain matter representation needs further study before the vector analysis can be succesfully used.
Hope this clarify my earlier communication ramblings. Angell
Angel,Neural synchrony is about neural waves of activity that are in phase that is oscillating in synch, not simultaneity of processing audio-visual input and the verbal linguistic input.
The idea is that the in synch excitations distinguish the signal from the groundswell of peripheral activity in various parts of the brain. It’s basically a dynamical hologram that can recognize itself. But synchrony itself is the recognizer because the in-synch oscillations naturally reinforce and all the other excitations randomly average out to nothing at all, or next to it, so it all makes perfect sense.